The Op-Ed Wasn’t Worth It
On Wednesday, the New York Times released an editorial from an anonymous source, who says they are a senior official in the Trump Administration, criticizing the president and saying staffers have taken steps to save the country from danger. The Times said they took the “rare step” of publishing an anonymous essay. “We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers,” they wrote as a precursor to the text.

Their reasoning is understandable, but the editorial has already done more harm than good. Has it changed minds? No. Has it created a new, substantive discussion? No. Has it put in jeaprody the credibility of the New York Times, which is already being beaten down by the most powerful figure in the free world? Yes.
This isn’t an argument to say that news outlets shouldn’t speak truth to power or even just challenge powerful figures, because my argument is actually the opposite. An anonymous story like this just hinders the ability of the Times to do important reporting and gave the president a chance to, once again, give a list of all the reasons voters should believe him and not them.
<blockquote class=”twitter-tweet” data-lang=”en”><p lang=”en” dir=”ltr”>Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href=”https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1037485664433070080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 5, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src=”https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset=”utf-8"></script>
“This was a very strongly, clearly written piece by someone who was staking out what we felt was a very principled position that deserved an airing,” James Dao, the Times’ editorial page editor said in an interview.
Dao has a point, but is it strong enough? In journalism school, we’re taught to put a name on everything, because that’s where your credibility lies. We’re taught to back up everything with enough facts to be indisputable, not in perception, but in reality. This op-ed provides a glimpse into the White House, but it does so at such a cost that it really isn’t worth it. We’ve seen accounts of inside the White House before, from stories at the Washington Post and New York Times, to entire books by Michael Wolff, Omarosa, and Bob Woodward. The needle has not changed.
Likewise, we’re also taught in school that journalists are not the story. The story this week is not the op-ed anymore, as it has been refuted and we may never really know who wrote it. The real story is the Times, who published a highly controversial piece without telling the public who wrote it. This diminishes yet another takedown of the White House, without actually convinvincing people to alter their view.
I should say this: I do believe that this person is who they say they are. I trust the Times to be truthful in their delivery and in their efforts to provide perspective. And I trust that the editors toiled with this decision and pulling the trigger wasn’t easy. It doesn’t change my view of the Times, but it will for those who don’t understand the process.
That’s the point. This editorial is relatively harmless to people familiar with the system: politicians, media workers, and others in the industry. But the people we serve — practically everyone else — is who we need to be most concerned about. We don’t do this to give politicans a deeper look at their craft, unless you’re a publication like Roll Call or Politico. We don’t write about business to make CEO’s feel good. We don’t write about entertainment to boost the condfidence of performers. We do it for the average person, who wants to learn and feel like they are a part of society. We also do it for the more noble reasons, like exposing corruption and making sure those average people have a voice.
This piece gave someone a voice. But who? Is this someone we know to be at odds with Trump already, or will it be a complete shock? Editorials are written for several reasons: to comment on current news and events, to shed new perspective on a situation, or to persuade readers to think a certain way. This piece maybe did one, but the cost completely outweighed the result.